I’ve always struggled getting a good read on the Meta. More than once I’ve fallen into the trap of playing a deck because I’d seen it blow out a tournament without understanding how it functioned within that specific environment. I’ve decided to start analyzing the NetRunner meta by finding the Nash Equilibrium. The solution I’m looking for is the balance of decks that is reasonable to expect, where each player has nothing to gain by switching strategies.

Do you think a binary (or ternary, if you count leaving it blank) choice will be fine-grained enough? A deck that is slightly favored in half of its matchups and completely screwed in the rest is probably not one you’ll see too many of.

Your right to point out that a ternary choice can’t describe the actually win rates. I think it will work for the purpose of the survey, since a deck that has lots of terrible match ups is unlike to be part of the equilibrium solution. Additionally, I’ll be using the survey along side hard data (if you’ve got some please send it my way). Where they agree I’ll know I can be confident in the result, where they disagree I’ll know I need to do some more digging and/or present a range of results.